Author
Topic: "An Assault on Our Soul" (Read 65707 times)

^^^ It matters not what Ivan the Terrible called himself. Understand, what high nobles, princes, tsars said about themselves and their land does not reflect what PEOPLE called themselves and their land. Beginning from that monk Philotheus, and his patron, Tsar Vasiliy "The One In The Dark" (he was blind), the court of the High Principality of Muscovy began to pursue the goal of becoming the Third Rome. So, they stole the name "Rus'", because they wanted to look like legitimate successors, heirs to great princes of Rus' (Ihor, Svyatoslav, Volodymyr, etc.) In fact the people they ruled had nothing to do with Rus', Rusy, Rusyny. They were (and are!) a different people...

I get the perception here that most of the authors aside from Hehorhji and IvanMazepa do not believe that Ukraine as an independent country, should have an independent church. I feel there is a lot of anti-Ukrainian, pro-russian sentiment. When I read that people believe that the holodomor was not an act of genocide by the Soviet Communists and Stalin to eradicate Ukrainian nationalism, it brings me to near tears.

Why is it Bulagaria, Serbia, Georgia, etc can have independent churches but Ukraine needs to either accept Russian dominance or go under Constantinople or in the case of Uki Catholics, under Rome.

Ukraine has an independent orthodox church with over 14 million believers and growing every year. In the end the UOCKP will achieve cannonical recognition. Some people may not be fans of Patriarch Filaret and well those people will not change their mind. Filaret is 81 and well 10 years from now there will probably be a new patriarch. No matter who he is, the Russians will besmearch his name and the church. Its sad that this forum is so staunchly anti-Ukrainian.

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history which would follow with UOCKP autocephaly. It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there. Ukrainian nationalism by itself wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t represent and stand for Russo phobia and pro western mind and ideas which are foreign to Russian people.As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

I get the perception here that most of the authors aside from Hehorhji and IvanMazepa do not believe that Ukraine as an independent country, should have an independent church. I feel there is a lot of anti-Ukrainian, pro-russian sentiment. When I read that people believe that the holodomor was not an act of genocide by the Soviet Communists and Stalin to eradicate Ukrainian nationalism, it brings me to near tears.

Why is it Bulagaria, Serbia, Georgia, etc can have independent churches but Ukraine needs to either accept Russian dominance or go under Constantinople or in the case of Uki Catholics, under Rome.

Ukraine has an independent orthodox church with over 14 million believers and growing every year. In the end the UOCKP will achieve cannonical recognition. Some people may not be fans of Patriarch Filaret and well those people will not change their mind. Filaret is 81 and well 10 years from now there will probably be a new patriarch. No matter who he is, the Russians will besmearch his name and the church. Its sad that this forum is so staunchly anti-Ukrainian.

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history which would follow with UOCKP autocephaly. It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there. Ukrainian nationalism by itself wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t represent and stand for Russo phobia and pro western mind and ideas which are foreign to Russian people.As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

The UOC was under the EP and annexed by the MP. It shoul;d get autocephaly from it's mother church the EP.

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history which would follow with UOCKP autocephaly. It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there. Ukrainian nationalism by itself wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t represent and stand for Russo phobia and pro western mind and ideas which are foreign to Russian people.As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

Well...you certainly are more than a bystander now that, as an outsider, you have taken a position on the Ukrainian nation, and with that an erroneous one. When the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was still frowning somewhat on Ukrainian populism at the beginning of the 19th Century, modern Ukrainian nationalism was already beginning to come to the fore with the poets Taras Shevchenko and others in Eastern (that is Orthodox) Ukraine. Kharkiv's University became one of the progenitors of modern Ukrainian patriotism and Kharkiv is in Eastern Ukraine.

Why do people who are not Ukrainian and have not the least elementary understanding of Ukrainian history feel free to jump in on the subject of Ukrainian nationalism of church history?

Tell me Dalibor, what works exactly have you studied of Ukrainian history or Church history?

Isa asked me somewhere whether I had a doctorate in Ukrainian history - well no, but I did study under one of the professors already mentioned in this thread who is an author of the History of Ukraine. I have also critiqued a master's thesis in class of a to-be doctoral candidate in Ukrainian history who now teaches Ukrainian history at a university in North America. I am not going to mention names on a public forum but the absolute unfamiliarity of some on this thread who jump in on Ukrainian history knowing so little is kind of astounding. After undergrad, I went elsewhere than history but that is neither here nor there.

So tell me Dalibor, again, on what historical works exactly do you base your, ahem, opinion that Ukrainian nationalism merely came from Ukrainian Greek-Catholics. SOURCES PLEASE!

He was writing in Russian, but his mentality was Ukrainian. So, when he wrote "Русская зeмля," he most certainly meant the same thing his heroes, Ukrainian Cossacs, meant under Русь, Руська зeмля - THEIR land, not the High Principality of Moscow, about which they had only very foggy idea if any. NO ONE in those years called Moscow, or Muscovy lands, "Russia" or "Russian lands," including the Muscovites themselves. Rus'ka zemlya meant the land where Rusy, Rusychy, Rusyny (i.e. present-day Ukrainians) lived.

Beginning from that monk Philotheus, and his patron, Tsar Vasiliy "The One In The Dark" (he was blind), the court of the High Principality of Muscovy began to pursue the goal of becoming the Third Rome. So, they stole the name "Rus'", because they wanted to look like legitimate successors,

Stole? It was theirs, as legitimate heirs, Rurikid successors of their ancestor, St Vladimir/Volodymyr.

In fact the people they ruled had nothing to do with Rus', Rusy, Rusyny. They were (and are!) a different people...

They were the same people. If they are a different people, many of them don't know it.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 07:40:55 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I get the perception here that most of the authors aside from Hehorhji and IvanMazepa do not believe that Ukraine as an independent country, should have an independent church. I feel there is a lot of anti-Ukrainian, pro-russian sentiment. When I read that people believe that the holodomor was not an act of genocide by the Soviet Communists and Stalin to eradicate Ukrainian nationalism, it brings me to near tears.

Why is it Bulagaria, Serbia, Georgia, etc can have independent churches but Ukraine needs to either accept Russian dominance or go under Constantinople or in the case of Uki Catholics, under Rome.

Ukraine has an independent orthodox church with over 14 million believers and growing every year. In the end the UOCKP will achieve cannonical recognition. Some people may not be fans of Patriarch Filaret and well those people will not change their mind. Filaret is 81 and well 10 years from now there will probably be a new patriarch. No matter who he is, the Russians will besmearch his name and the church. Its sad that this forum is so staunchly anti-Ukrainian.

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history which would follow with UOCKP autocephaly. It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there. Ukrainian nationalism by itself wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t represent and stand for Russo phobia and pro western mind and ideas which are foreign to Russian people.As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

The UOC was under the EP and annexed by the MP. It shoul;d get autocephaly from it's mother church the EP.

The MP is the Mother Church, as the Patriarch of Moscow is the successor of St. Michael of Kiev, and why St. Peter's staff is given to the enthroned Patriarch by the Metropolitan of Kiev. The EP formed the Metropolia of Kiev uncanonically after it apostacized and bowed to the Vatican. Or does Filaret wish to be the successor of Cardinal Isadore?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As to the rest, I think that I agree with you. Ukrainians are not Russians, they are more like Poles and I think that the Russians need to let them go. I don't think that there is a question that there needs to be an independent Ukraine, or an independent Ukrainian Church. The question, I believe, is over boundary. Also, the question is one of legitimacy. The ROCOR, which I was proudly part of for most of my time in the Orthodox Church, was not considered part of "World Orthodoxy" either. You know what? We didn't care. We worshiped and kept the Faith as best we could regardless of what the World thought of us. I see no reason that the Ukrainians should not do likewise. If you really believe that Nationalism is more important than being part of the Body of Christ, or if you believe that you remain such even after you sever yourself from the other Churches, go for it. If your authority comes from God, who cares who recognizes you. When nobody recognizes you, perhaps you should reconsider.

BTW - even before the ROCOR reunited with the MP, it was recognized, and its Bishops co-celebrated with Serbia and Jerusalem. Does anyone recognize the breakaway Ukrainian Orthodox Church? I am not asking this rhetorically because I don't know. I am asking to find out. If the other local canonical Churches recognize you, forget about Russian and move on.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I am still waiting for your condemnation of Russian nationalism in the MP.

Yes, so am I. For that matter I am still waiting to hear him condemn Russia's President Putin for putting a positive spin on the Soviet Secret Police killers of the 1930s or to condemn what the Economist magazine's Edward Lukas bemoaned about the Russian neo-fascism of groups like Nashi.

What is the matter Isa. Your silence only leads me to believe you approve of Russian extremist nationalism since you are too scared to answer. Here's a good litmus test: do you condemn the vice-head of Russia's Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky? Do a google search on him if you don't know him and tell me whether you think him a good Russian. Not that difficult. Are you afraid to condemn Russian imperialism or chauvinism? Be honest.

Well, as IreneOlinyk mentioned on this thread a good professor of Ukrainian history is Frank Sysyn. Sysyn has studied the time frame above particularly well. He writes in "The Formation of Modern Ukrainian Religious Culture" published in 1990 that:

"Political events rapidly eroded the unity and autonomy of the Kyivan metropolitan see in the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1685-86, during the election of Metropolitan Gedeon Chetvertyns'kyi, the Muscovite government arranged, by means of pressure and bribes, the transfer of the see from the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople to that of the patriarch of Moscow."

A commemorative book edited by Zinkevych and Sorokowski in 1988 in North America to mark "A Thousand Years of Christianity in Ukraine", lists the following under the entries for the years 1685-86:

"....the Muscovite Tsar sends a message to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jacobus I, along with 40 sables and 200 red (golden) coins requesting the Patriarch to transfer the Kievan Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Moscow Patriarch Yoakim send his representative cantor....Learning the purpose of the Muscovite delegation, the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus II sends them an angry letter, in which he points out the illegality of their request and accuses them of trying to acquire a Metropolitanate by means of bribes of money and gifts. After prolonged negotiations, the new Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius IV, does not agree to hand over the Kievan Metropolitanate. Then Moscow's representative appeals to the Turkish Vizier....the Vizier orders the Patriarch Dionysus IV to hand over the Kievan Metropolitanate to Moscow...The Eastern clergy call a Patriarchal Synod for the end of they year, during which they deprive Dionysius IV of his office and cancel all his decrees connected with the transfer of the Kievan Metropolitanate to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

(emphasis above mine)

Indeed, someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the Hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada (EP) recognizes de jure the 1686 transfer of jurisdiction to Moscow. So the statement in the OP is not simply much ado about nothing. There is history behind what is written there. Bottomline, in my humble opinion, the Moscow Patriarch's refusal to see an Autocephalous Church in Ukraine or a Patriarchate is more political and secular than spiritual. The MP and EP have already come to blows over Estonia with the MP not listening to its elder Constantinople.

I get the perception here that most of the authors aside from Hehorhji and IvanMazepa do not believe that Ukraine as an independent country, should have an independent church. I feel there is a lot of anti-Ukrainian, pro-russian sentiment. When I read that people believe that the holodomor was not an act of genocide by the Soviet Communists and Stalin to eradicate Ukrainian nationalism, it brings me to near tears.

Why is it Bulagaria, Serbia, Georgia, etc can have independent churches but Ukraine needs to either accept Russian dominance or go under Constantinople or in the case of Uki Catholics, under Rome.

Ukraine has an independent orthodox church with over 14 million believers and growing every year. In the end the UOCKP will achieve cannonical recognition. Some people may not be fans of Patriarch Filaret and well those people will not change their mind. Filaret is 81 and well 10 years from now there will probably be a new patriarch. No matter who he is, the Russians will besmearch his name and the church. Its sad that this forum is so staunchly anti-Ukrainian.

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history

how about falsification of the present? Tens of millions aren't Russian, and they are not going to be Russified.

It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there.

Nationalism seperate from what became Russian was well under way with Roman the Great of Galicia (1199-1205) and built on by his son Daniel, King of Rus'/Russia Galicia-Volhynia, who founded Lviv, naming it after his son Lev. They all remained Faithful to the Orthodox Faith and Church. Whether that was Rus'/Greater Russias, Rusyn/Ruthenian/Carpathorussian or Ukrianian is another question.

As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

I'm going to skip most of this for now, although I will note that picking a defrocked hiearch as your primate is not a good move to endear you to the Almighty.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well, as IreneOlinyk mentioned on this thread a good professor of Ukrainian history is Frank Sysyn. Sysyn has studied the time frame above particularly well. He writes in "The Formation of Modern Ukrainian Religious Culture" published in 1990 that:

"Political events rapidly eroded the unity and autonomy of the Kyivan metropolitan see in the second half of the seventeenth century. In 1685-86, during the election of Metropolitan Gedeon Chetvertyns'kyi, the Muscovite government arranged, by means of pressure and bribes, the transfer of the see from the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople to that of the patriarch of Moscow."

A commemorative book edited by Zinkevych and Sorokowski in 1988 in North America to mark "A Thousand Years of Christianity in Ukraine", lists the following under the entries for the years 1685-86:

sends a message to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jacobus I, along with 40 sables and 200 red (golden) coins requesting the Patriarch to transfer the Kievan Metropolitanate to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Moscow Patriarch Yoakim send his representative cantor....Learning the purpose of the Muscovite delegation, the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus II sends them an angry letter, in which he points out the illegality of their request and accuses them of trying to acquire a Metropolitanate by means of bribes of money and gifts. After prolonged negotiations, the new Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius IV, does not agree to hand over the Kievan Metropolitanate. Then Moscow's representative appeals to the Turkish Vizier....the Vizier orders the Patriarch Dionysus IV to hand over the Kievan Metropolitanate to Moscow...The Eastern clergy call a Patriarchal Synod for the end of they year, during which they deprive Dionysius IV of his office and cancel all his decrees connected with the transfer of the Kievan Metropolitanate to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

(emphasis above mine)

Indeed, someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the Hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada (EP) recognizes de jure the 1686 transfer of jurisdiction to Moscow.

And what the Ukrainian hiearchy in Canada under Constantinople has to say about Moscow's jurisdiction over Ukraine is determinative how?

"After the so-called “re-unification” (1654), the mighty barons of Muscovy were not satisfied that they had captured the secular power all over Ukraine. They needed the soul of the Ukrainian people. Where is this soul? Of course, in the Church. So, the government of the Tzar, and the Patriarch of Moscow – by that time, the Metropoly of Moscow had already morphed into “Patriarchy,” by the way, also due to the means that had been, well, questionable… - raised the issue of subjugating the Kyiv Metropoly to Moscow. In 1686, a delegation led by Nikita Alekseev went to Constantinople, with the goal to extract the endorsement of Eastern Prelates for the liquidation of the Kyiv ecclesiastical authonomy. The Patriarch of Constantinople, +DIONISIUS, was showered with rich gifts, and he gave in. In less than one year after this shameful deal, the Patriarch was convicted of simony and defrocked. Yet, the decision to get rid of the ecclesiastically autonomous Orthodox jurisdiction with the center in Kyiv stayed. Now, we ask you: was this decision an act that was in line with the Canon Law? Was it in line with any law? You won’t answer, of course. But you know, with what ease has the Daughter bought the right to be “known” as “Mother,” and also just what she did with her actual Mother – robbed her, humiliated her, deprived her of everything and is still keeping the Mother in outrageous captivity, spiritual slavery."

Your comments, thoughts?

An Anglican prelate at Constantinople in the days of EP +DIONYSIOS describes the status of the Eastern prelates on the eve of +DIONYSIOS' appearance on its throne:[The patriarchs of Constantinople By Claude Delaval Cobham]

Quote

"The oppression which the Greeks lie under from the Turks, though very bad and dismal in itself, becomes more uneasy and troublesome by their own horrid Quarrels and Differences about the choice of a Patriarch: there being often times several Pretenders among the Metropolitans and Bishops, and they too making an interest, by large summs of mony, in the Vizir, or the other Bassa's, to attain their ends. He who by his mony and his friends has prevailed...will endeavour to reimburse himself and lay the burden and debt, which he has contracted, upon the Church, which must pay for all: while the rest, who envy his preferment...unite their interest and strength to get him displaced, by remonstrating against his injustice and ill management of affairs, and put up fresh petitions to the Turks, and bribe lustily to be heard. The Turks, glad of such an opportunity of gain, readily enough admit their Complaint, and put out and put in, as they see occasion When I reflect upon these Revolutions and Changes, I am filled at the same time with amazement and pity, and cannot but put up this hearty prayer to Almighty God...that He would be pleased to inspire the Grecian Bishops with sober and peaceable counsels.'" Smith, An Account of the Greek Church, pp. 80—83. Thomas Smith, B.D., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, was chaplain to the English Embassy at Constantinople in the reign of Charles II. From the chapter in his book, out of which the above-quoted passages are taken, it appears that he left Constantinople to return to England in 1671 or 1672. He mentions the protection given by the Embassy to the deposed patriarch Methodius III in 1671.

http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/patriarchs+DIONYSIOS IV Muselimes, as can be see, had five reigns (high for any EP). The EP website says that +DIONYSIOS "was imprisioned twice by the Turks and purchased his freedeom by ransom (1679 and 1688),"http://www.ec-patr.org/list/index.php?lang=gr&id=236the last being the tenure that Fr. V. is so worried about. I don't know about the allegation that "the Patriarch was convicted of simony and defrocked," as him being taken for ransom wasn't the first time, and he went on once again to rule as Patriarch in the Phanar again afterwards, after six years and his predecessor becoming his successor. In the introduction to the same work quoted above, Fortescue gives the background of how EP Dionysios came and went from the Ecumenical Throne 5x:

Quote

The history of the patriarchs, however, during the reign of Mohammed II., so far as it is known, shows that if the patriarchate fell into an evil plight, this was due not so much to Turkish bad faith as to the prevalence of ' emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, envyings' among the clergy and people. ' Fortunati nimium, sua si bona nossent' is the conclusion one comes to after considering, on the one hand, the ample privileges bestowed upon the patriarchate by the Turkish conqueror, and on the other, the restless, unsettled state of the Church of Constantinople both under him and under his successors, down to the present day, a clear token whereof is the great number of patriarchal abdications, very few of which have been purely voluntary.

The depositions were not always effected by arbitrary intervention on the part of the secular power. More than once a patriarch was deposed by a synod of metropolitans, which also passed sentence of exile upon him. The execution of the sentence would, of course, be left to the secular authorities.

No doubt much of the disquiet and disorder in the Church of Constantinople during the seventeenth century was due to Jesuit intrigues. But the efforts of the Jesuits would have been comparatively harmless had they not been assisted by the factious spirit rampant among the Greeks. The worst enemies of the Church's peace were to be found among those who were of her own household. With regard to the Turkish Government, we may be permitted to doubt whether it stood in need of any encouragement to perpetrate acts of oppressive intervention, but one cannot be surprised that Sultans and Vizirs, finding themselves appealed to first by one and then by another Christian faction, should have laid hold of the opportunities gratuitously supplied them. If the Christians showed themselves ready to buy the support of the secular power, it was not incumbent upon the secular power, alien in race and religion, to refuse to do business. Phranza speaks of the bestowal of the patriarchal crozier as performed by Mohammed II. in imitation of his Christian predecessors. The ceremony of confirmation or investiture, as described by Phranza, appears not to have been retained in practice for very long. The escort of honour from the Porte to the patriarchal residence may have been continued, but the ceremony of the crozier appears in a document of the sixteenth century as an ecclesiastical and no longer a political one. Moreover, it very soon became customary for the patriarchs to take presents to the Porte, instead of receiving them there. The first four patriarchs, says Manuel Malaxos, were elected without making any present to the Sultan, but after the appointment of Mark Xylocaravis, a junta of immigrants from Trebizond offered the Sultan a thousand florins to obtain his support of their opposition to the patriarch, whom they purposed to remove in favour of a fellow-countryman of theirs, one Symeon, a monk. According to Malaxos, ' the Sultan laughed, and then pondered a long while, considering the enviousness and stupidity of the Romans, and their ungodly ways.' Then he confirmed an assertion made by them to the effect that Mark had promised a thousand florins for the confirmation of his election, though the patriarch had neither promised nor given a copper. The Sultan, however, saw an opening to the establishment of such payments as a regular custom. He took the money offered by Mark's enemies and bade them go and elect as patriarch whomsoever they would. A charge of simony was then brought against Mark, who was put on his trial before a synod, condemned, deposed and anathematized. Symeon was then elected and consecrated, but before very long was deposed by order of the Sultan. Once again money had been talking.The Sultan's stepmother, who appears to have been a Christian, was desirous to promote a friend of hers, the metropolitan of Philippopolis, to honour, and at the same time put an end to the scandalous agitations of the Church caused by the strife between the factions of Symeon and Mark. She therefore brought the Sultan two thousand florins in a silver dish and told him that there was a monk who was her friend, and that she wanted to have him made patriarch. The result of the proposal was an imperial order for the deposition of Symeon, who retired to a monastery. Mark was voted by the synod assembled in the capital, to which he had appealed for revision of his sentence, to the archbishopric of Achrida. Dionysius, the protdge' of the Sultan's stepmother, occupied the throne for eight years, and then, in disgust at a false charge of apostasy, though he clearly refuted it, abdicated and retired to a monastery near Cavalla in Macedonia. The synod, in whose presence he had refuted the charge of apostasy, recalled Symeon. It was necessary, however, to make sure of the Sultan's approval, and to this end a deputation presented itself at the Sublime Porte, bringing a thousand florins, and so carrying out in act the charge laid in word against Mark Xylocaravis. But the Defterdar rejected their petition and the proffered douceur. There was an entry in the imperial accounts, he said, showing that the proper amount of the fee was two thousand florins. This, of course, referred to the transaction between the Sultan and his stepmother. Of this matter the members of the synod possibly had no knowledge at the time, but whether they had or not made no difference. There was nothing for it but to sponge up another thousand florins, ' which being done, says Malaxos,' the Defterdar ceased from troubling.'

Thus an evil precedent was set, and henceforth every patriarch was expected to pay a fee for the imperial confirmation of his election. To this burden another was added by the reckless ambition of a Servian monk, Raphael by name, who procured the fnal dethronement of Symeon by the conversion ofo the investiture fee of 2000 florins into an annual 'kharaj' or triubte, the amount of the investiture-fee being now fixed at 500 florins. It was not to be expected, however, that these amounts should never be exceeded. By the time of Jeremiah II's first election to the patriarchate, viz. A.D. 1572, the investiture fee (peskesion as Malaxos calls it) was 2000 florins, while the annual 'kharaj' had risen to 4100. In A.D. 1672 as we learn from Paul Ricaut the English Consul at Smyrna, the debts of the patriarchate amounted to 350,000 piastres, equal to more than L40,000 at the present day; 'the interest of which increasing daily, and rigously extorted by the Power of the most covetous and considerable Turkish officers, who lend or supply the Money, is the reason and occasion that the Patriarch so often summons all his Archbishops and Bishops to appear at Constantinople, that so they may consult and agree on an expedient to ease in some measure the present Burden and Pressure of their Debts; the payment of which is often the occasion of new Demands: For the Turks, finding this Fountain the fresher and more plenifully flowing for being drained, continually suck from this Stream, which is to them more sweet, for being the Blood of the Poor, and the life of Christians.' It was, after all, not so much on the dignitaries and authorities of the Orthodox Church, as upon the parish priests and the poor among the people generally, that the fiscal burdens pressed most heavily. The most helpless had to suffer most. What help, indeed, could they expect when their chief shephers became robbers?

With ironical respect the Orthodox laity, under the Turkish regime, spoke of their bishops as 'despota'— despots. The powers enjoyed by the episcopal order, whose members were made use of by the temporal power as agents of police, were so considerable as to make even an ordinary bishopric an appointment to be coveted—still more a metropolitan see, and most of all the patriarchate. Even apart from the financial opportunities, in the use of which a patriarch or metropolitan could rely on secular assistance, the dignity and honour of ' chief seats in the synagogue' must always have had considerable attraction for the Greeks, who, even after the Turkish Conquest, esteemed themselves the first of nations. Add to these conditions and circumstances the spirit of jealousy which has been, and still is, the bane of the race—the spirit which gives a Greek army so many generals and so few soldiers—and it is not hard to understand why changes in the occupancy of the patriarchate of Constantinople have been so numerous and frequent. The patriarch and the bishops purchased their dignities, and repaid themselves by selling ecclesiastical rank and privileges; the priests purchased holy orders, and sold licenses to marry. The laity paid for marriages, divorces, baptisms, pardons, and dispensations of many kinds to their bishops. The extent to which patriarchs and bishops interfered in family disputes and questions of property is proved by contemporary documents.'— Finlay, History of Greece, v. p. 156, cf. p. 150

The Turkish conquest of Constantinople (1453), strangely enough, added still more to the power of its patriarchs. True to their unchanging attitude the Mohammedans accepted each religious communion as a civil body. The Rayahs were grouped according to their Churches. The greatest of these bodies was, and is, the Orthodox Church, with the name ' Roman nation' (rum millet), strange survival of the dead empire. And the recognized civil head of this Roman nation is the oecumenical patriarch. So he now has civil jurisdiction over all orthodox Rayahs in the Turkisk empire, over the other patriarchs and their subjects and over the autocephalous Cypriotes as well as over the faithful of his own patriarchate. No orthodox Christian can approach the Porte except through his court at the Phanar. And the Phanar continually tries to use this civil jurisdiction for ecclesiastical purposes.

There is also more about Patriarch Dositheus (much more) but I'll post that seperately.

So yes the Ukrainians, the Russians, the Greeks, heck the Arabs, think every event in history revolves around them and interpret accordingly, but that doesn't make it so. I know it is attractive to dismiss the transfer back to Moscow as the result of bribes. But the record would seem to indicate it was business as usual, how EP Dionysius, Pat. Dositheus, and all the rest of those clery that Zinkevych and Sorokowski talk of got their positions, so where are you going to stop canceling all of their actions, including taking the Metropolitanate of Kiev from Moscow in 1589?

Bottomline, in my humble opinion, the Moscow Patriarch's refusal to see an Autocephalous Church in Ukraine or a Patriarchate is more political and secular than spiritual.

How do you think that "elder Constantinople" got its position? Is Fr. V's "argument" spiritual? Not political nor secular? Moscow has no spiritual attachment to the seat of St. Vladimir, "Mother of Russian Cities?"

The MP and EP have already come to blows over Estonia with the MP not listening to its elder Constantinople.

There comes a time when Mother has to tell grandma to butt out of raising the daughter.

Although the EP found a nice Greek from the Congo who doesn't speak Estonia to stick in Tallin, the Estonian speaking, Estonia bred, baptized, chrismated and consecrated MP had a fine Estonian speaking, Estonia bred, baptized, chrismated and consecrated Metropolitan in Estonia. The EP breaking canons wasn't welcome, except by the non-Orthodox political and secular establishment of Estonia.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 10:14:58 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Quote from: Dalibor on Today at 07:04:06 PMIt is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there.

Try and borrow any of the history books on Ukraine mentioned by the American scholars already and check your facts please.

Taras Shevchenko, the national poet of Ukraine was born in Central Ukraine not Halychyna or Galicia as you call it. The Austrians only took over Halychyna in the 18th century. The Church in Halychyna at the time was Orthodox. The Austrians closed down the last Orthodox monastery in Halychyna with troops in 1785 and all the monks crossed the border to move into Orthodox monasteries in Bukovyna.

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history which would follow with UOCKP autocephaly. It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there. Ukrainian nationalism by itself wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t represent and stand for Russo phobia and pro western mind and ideas which are foreign to Russian people.As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

Well...you certainly are more than a bystander now that, as an outsider, you have taken a position on the Ukrainian nation, and with that an erroneous one. When the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was still frowning somewhat on Ukrainian populism at the beginning of the 19th Century, modern Ukrainian nationalism was already beginning to come to the fore with the poets Taras Shevchenko and others in Eastern (that is Orthodox) Ukraine. Kharkiv's University became one of the progenitors of modern Ukrainian patriotism and Kharkiv is in Eastern Ukraine.

Why do people who are not Ukrainian and have not the least elementary understanding of Ukrainian history feel free to jump in on the subject of Ukrainian nationalism of church history?

Tell me Dalibor, what works exactly have you studied of Ukrainian history or Church history?

Isa asked me somewhere whether I had a doctorate in Ukrainian history - well no, but I did study under one of the professors already mentioned in this thread who is an author of the History of Ukraine. I have also critiqued a master's thesis in class of a to-be doctoral candidate in Ukrainian history who now teaches Ukrainian history at a university in North America. I am not going to mention names on a public forum but the absolute unfamiliarity of some on this thread who jump in on Ukrainian history knowing so little is kind of astounding. After undergrad, I went elsewhere than history but that is neither here nor there.

So tell me Dalibor, again, on what historical works exactly do you base your, ahem, opinion that Ukrainian nationalism merely came from Ukrainian Greek-Catholics. SOURCES PLEASE!

You are confusing regional patriotism with national identity. If every region or oblast in Russian Federation develops national identity from regional identity how many new nations would there be? So you have your own dialect of Russian language and your own culture, so what? I come from Serbian Krajina which is now part of Croatia and it was similarly to Ukraine a borderland to Ottoman Empire. We have our own dialect of Serbian language, our own cultural identity yet we call ourselves Serbs. Regional identity is there to enrich us not to divide us.No one is forbidding you to be Ukrainian and nationalist but if I was Russian I would fight you tooth and nail to stop your ukrainization of my people who still have Russian national identity with Ukrainstvo as regional identity.

So you have your own dialect of Russian language and your own culture, so what? I come from Serbian Krajina which is now part of Croatia and it was similarly to Ukraine a borderland to Ottoman Empire. We have our own dialect of Serbian language, our own cultural identity yet we call ourselves Serbs. Regional identity is there to enrich us not to divide us.No one is forbidding you to be Ukrainian and nationalist but if I was Russian I would fight you tooth and nail to stop your ukrainization of my people who still have Russian national identity with Ukrainstvo as regional identity.

Fighting tooth and nail, nice Christian sentiment. Where to start? Ukrainian is a separate language; not a dialect. There is an Eastern Slavic group consisting of three languages: Ukrainian, Russian, and Belarusan. All linguists here agree. Your understanding of Ukrainian is ridiculous. Plop a Russian from Moscow into a Ukrainian conversation in the Rada and they will barely comprehend what is being spoken about. Read Hrushevsky's multivolume History of Ukraine in English.

Is it really that difficult, as Orest has suggested, to pick up a book by Subtelny or Magocsi and learn about Ukraine. For some it evidently is. I asked you for sources to back up your claim on Ukrainian nationalism. You haven't read any books obviously because you did not cite one. I am still trying to find the source of so much anti-Ukrainian bigotry on here, but might as well give up. Your allusions to "fighting [Ukrainians] tooth and nail" is actually quite frightening. Let me get this straight, you are advocating on the internet for violence against Ukrainians by Russians? By tooth and nail do you mean physical violence as was done in the Balkans recently?

You know what. I am sorry. This is my last post on this thread and Forum for that matter. I regret actually attempting to join now. I am thoroughly disheartened at the amount of anti-Ukrainian sentiment on here by other Orthodox (you Ukrainian have no language, no history, the Russians need this part of your country, Holodomor/Ukrainian genocide dimishment/denial). I never truly expected such unChristian sentiments on a Forum after all dedicated to the Church built by Jesus Christ our Savior. I don't blame the Forum masters. Nicely, I have been allowed to post. But the amount of believers on here in effect wishing Ukrainians ill-will just about finishes it for me. This is what Christ taught us? Thank you, good bye.

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history which would follow with UOCKP autocephaly. It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there. Ukrainian nationalism by itself wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t represent and stand for Russo phobia and pro western mind and ideas which are foreign to Russian people.As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

Well...you certainly are more than a bystander now that, as an outsider, you have taken a position on the Ukrainian nation, and with that an erroneous one. When the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was still frowning somewhat on Ukrainian populism at the beginning of the 19th Century, modern Ukrainian nationalism was already beginning to come to the fore with the poets Taras Shevchenko and others in Eastern (that is Orthodox) Ukraine. Kharkiv's University became one of the progenitors of modern Ukrainian patriotism and Kharkiv is in Eastern Ukraine.

Why do people who are not Ukrainian and have not the least elementary understanding of Ukrainian history feel free to jump in on the subject of Ukrainian nationalism of church history?

Tell me Dalibor, what works exactly have you studied of Ukrainian history or Church history?

Isa asked me somewhere whether I had a doctorate in Ukrainian history - well no, but I did study under one of the professors already mentioned in this thread who is an author of the History of Ukraine. I have also critiqued a master's thesis in class of a to-be doctoral candidate in Ukrainian history who now teaches Ukrainian history at a university in North America. I am not going to mention names on a public forum but the absolute unfamiliarity of some on this thread who jump in on Ukrainian history knowing so little is kind of astounding. After undergrad, I went elsewhere than history but that is neither here nor there.

So tell me Dalibor, again, on what historical works exactly do you base your, ahem, opinion that Ukrainian nationalism merely came from Ukrainian Greek-Catholics. SOURCES PLEASE!

No one is forbidding you to be Ukrainian and nationalist but if I was Russian I would fight you tooth and nail to stop your ukrainization of my people who still have Russian national identity with Ukrainstvo as regional identity.

And those who have Ukrainstvo as the national identity?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My opinion is in favor of the Ukrainians.I also think MP should step out of Moldova.MP was and is clearly imperialistic. Only people wearing rose-colored glasses don't see it:look at Georgia, look at Ukraine, look at Moldova and how all these churches that didn't receive their Christianity from Moscow ended up there.

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

You know what. I am sorry. This is my last post on this thread and Forum for that matter. I regret actually attempting to join now. I am thoroughly disheartened at the amount of anti-Ukrainian sentiment on here by other Orthodox (you Ukrainian have no language, no history, the Russians need this part of your country, Holodomor/Ukrainian genocide dimishment/denial). I never truly expected such unChristian sentiments on a Forum after all dedicated to the Church built by Jesus Christ our Savior. I don't blame the Forum masters. Nicely, I have been allowed to post. But the amount of believers on here in effect wishing Ukrainians ill-will just about finishes it for me. This is what Christ taught us? Thank you, good bye.

Slava Isusu Chrystu!

You are twisting the problem again. The problem is not your right to exist as Ukrainian nation but your imposing of Ukrainian nationalism upon everyone else. Why should Moscow let your nationalists convince Russians they are actually Ukrainians? You are using Ukrainian regional identity of people there to convince them their regional identity is actually their national identity. All the while you are using anti Russian sentiment to achieve that and turning politically to the west and NATO. And you expect me to feel sorry about you. UOCKP autocephaly will not happen until borders of Ukraine are redefined. ROC will certainly not abandon it’s people to Ukrainian nationalists while there are still those who consider themselves to be part of Holy Rus.

BTW - even before the ROCOR reunited with the MP, it was recognized, and its Bishops co-celebrated with Serbia and Jerusalem. Does anyone recognize the breakaway Ukrainian Orthodox Church? I am not asking this rhetorically because I don't know. I am asking to find out. If the other local canonical Churches recognize you, forget about Russian and move on.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

My opinion is in favor of the Ukrainians.I also think MP should step out of Moldova.MP was and is clearly imperialistic. Only people wearing rose-colored glasses don't see it:look at Georgia, look at Ukraine, look at Moldova and how all these churches that didn't receive their Christianity from Moscow ended up there.

They ended up under the Orthodox Czar and not hte Muslim Sultan and Shah.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

As a bystander I can see why MP doesn’t give autocephaly to Ukraine. Moscow obviously wants to preserve Russian identity of people in that country as they historically are Russians. One nation and one church as opposed to ukrainization of Russians and falsification of history which would follow with UOCKP autocephaly. It is very clear that Ukrainian nationalism started with Galician Greco Catholics who once they betrayed Orthodox faith and church also felt disconnected with Russian nation. So they developed their own identity which was fuelled by Austro Hungarian propaganda at the end of nineteen century just to divide Russian people there. Ukrainian nationalism by itself wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t represent and stand for Russo phobia and pro western mind and ideas which are foreign to Russian people.As for UOCKP that church has no grace from God as all other schismatic churches. Holy Spirit distances Himself from schismatics as well as from heretics.

Well...you certainly are more than a bystander now that, as an outsider, you have taken a position on the Ukrainian nation, and with that an erroneous one. When the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was still frowning somewhat on Ukrainian populism at the beginning of the 19th Century, modern Ukrainian nationalism was already beginning to come to the fore with the poets Taras Shevchenko and others in Eastern (that is Orthodox) Ukraine. Kharkiv's University became one of the progenitors of modern Ukrainian patriotism and Kharkiv is in Eastern Ukraine.

Why do people who are not Ukrainian and have not the least elementary understanding of Ukrainian history feel free to jump in on the subject of Ukrainian nationalism of church history?

Tell me Dalibor, what works exactly have you studied of Ukrainian history or Church history?

Isa asked me somewhere whether I had a doctorate in Ukrainian history - well no, but I did study under one of the professors already mentioned in this thread who is an author of the History of Ukraine. I have also critiqued a master's thesis in class of a to-be doctoral candidate in Ukrainian history who now teaches Ukrainian history at a university in North America. I am not going to mention names on a public forum but the absolute unfamiliarity of some on this thread who jump in on Ukrainian history knowing so little is kind of astounding. After undergrad, I went elsewhere than history but that is neither here nor there.

So tell me Dalibor, again, on what historical works exactly do you base your, ahem, opinion that Ukrainian nationalism merely came from Ukrainian Greek-Catholics. SOURCES PLEASE!

It's not merely an erroneous position. I clearly see my enemy. Obeying Christ, I love this guy Dalibor, threat of physical harm removed from post -PtA

You have been warned before for threatening physical harm to our posters. For threatening to spit in another poster's face should you ever meet him face-to-face, you are receiving this warning to last for the next 30 days. If you think this action wrong, please appeal it via PM to Fr. George.

You are twisting the problem again. The problem is not your right to exist as Ukrainian nation but your imposing of Ukrainian nationalism upon everyone else. Why should Moscow let your nationalists convince Russians they are actually Ukrainians? You are using Ukrainian regional identity of people there to convince them their regional identity is actually their national identity. All the while you are using anti Russian sentiment to achieve that and turning politically to the west and NATO. And you expect me to feel sorry about you. UOCKP autocephaly will not happen until borders of Ukraine are redefined. ROC will certainly not abandon it’s people to Ukrainian nationalists while there are still those who consider themselves to be part of Holy Rus.

I think that there is a lot of truth to this. The Ukrainian Church does not seemed fueled for a love of Christ as much as it does a hatred for Russia. And Russia for its part has much to fear of an independent Ukraine. Just as they ran toward the Poles and their Pope, they now want to be bedfellows with the Antichrist NATO. While, perhaps, this should have no bearing on Church matters (render unto Caesar and all that), it certainly is not insignificant politically. And given that the Slavs have a much closer cooperation between Church and State, it is easy to see why the political issues can meld into the spiritual. In any case, I agree with Heorhij and some of the other Ukrainians that Russia has a tendency to be heavy handed in its dealings, both political and spiritual. There is still a lot of mistrust of the MP within the ROCOR, and some wonder if the right decision was made with reunification. So I really believe that the solution to the spiritual mess will probably not come until there is stabilization with the political mess. I don't believe that Russia will trust a wishy washy Ukraine. And I don't believe that Ukraine will trust Russia until there is a solid, independent Ukraine free of Russian interference. The question remains as to who is "big" enough to make the first move toward peace. In my view, the solution has to start with Russia.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

You are twisting the problem again. The problem is not your right to exist as Ukrainian nation but your imposing of Ukrainian nationalism upon everyone else. Why should Moscow let your nationalists convince Russians they are actually Ukrainians? You are using Ukrainian regional identity of people there to convince them their regional identity is actually their national identity. All the while you are using anti Russian sentiment to achieve that and turning politically to the west and NATO. And you expect me to feel sorry about you. UOCKP autocephaly will not happen until borders of Ukraine are redefined. ROC will certainly not abandon it’s people to Ukrainian nationalists while there are still those who consider themselves to be part of Holy Rus.

I think that there is a lot of truth to this. The Ukrainian Church does not seemed fueled for a love of Christ as much as it does a hatred for Russia.

No. The UOC-KP and the UAOC are not driven by hatred. And again, quite a few of the so-called Ukrainian "nationalists" were (or are) themselves ethnic Russians. We just want Ukraine to remain Ukraine instead of becomig a province of the Eurasian Oil-and-Gas Empire.

And Russia for its part has much to fear of an independent Ukraine. Just as they ran toward the Poles and their Pope, they now want to be bedfellows with the Antichrist NATO.

Ukrainians never "ran towards the Poles" - Ukraine was a part of the so-called Rzecz Pospolita in the past, but it wasn't like Ukrainians came to the Polish king and asked him to be their ruler. It was a complicated history, with many twists and turns. As for NATO, actually only a minority of Ukrainians favor joining it. What many Ukrainians want is not as much being in NATO as being in the political and cultural Europe with its political system based on principles of transparency, meritocraty, freedom of the speech, press and gatherings, and respect for human dignity. What Russia seems to be offering is a very different system, essentially a reincarnation of Samoderzhavie, an autocratic regime with only "cosmetic" signs of "democracy." We have lived in the USSR long enough to accept this.

While, perhaps, this should have no bearing on Church matters (render unto Caesar and all that), it certainly is not insignificant politically. And given that the Slavs have a much closer cooperation between Church and State, it is easy to see why the political issues can meld into the spiritual.

There is a saying that "the soul of the people is in the people's Church." The currently existing "U"OC is, with all my tremendous due respect to her rank-and-file clergy (some UOC priests are my good friends since this past July), under a strong influence of Patr. +KIRILL who is methodically implementing the Kremlin politics of spiritual annihilation of Ukraine (they call it making Ukraine part of a fictitious "Russian World"). If some Ukrainians are OK with this, other Ukrainians most definitely are not, and never will be. That includes those Ukrainians who are Orthodox faithful.

In any case, I agree with Heorhij and some of the other Ukrainians that Russia has a tendency to be heavy handed in its dealings, both political and spiritual. There is still a lot of mistrust of the MP within the ROCOR, and some wonder if the right decision was made with reunification. So I really believe that the solution to the spiritual mess will probably not come until there is stabilization with the political mess. I don't believe that Russia will trust a wishy washy Ukraine. And I don't believe that Ukraine will trust Russia until there is a solid, independent Ukraine free of Russian interference. The question remains as to who is "big" enough to make the first move toward peace. In my view, the solution has to start with Russia.

Perhaps more realistically, it should start with the Orthodox faithful all over the world to look at Ukraine as a nation, rather than a pawn in the games between the Oil-and-Gas Empire and the West.

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

But of course. And let them in the "U"OC be whatever they want to be. Not all parishioners of the "U"OC are Russian chauvinists: there are some who just feel very attached to the Russian language and culture without sharing the "Ukrainophagic" plans of the Kremlin and Patr. +KIRILL. I am not their enemy ans they aren't my enemies. Again, I don't want to replace the "U"OC by some "nationalistic" jurisdiction; I just want the religious needs of patriotic Ukrainians like myself to be met without the scorn that they receive, being associated with a "schism."

What stands as an obstacle though is the KGB and the Kremlin (which are nowadays the same organization ). Being directed by this organization, hierarchs of the "U"OC infect their flock with "thought viruses" about "the damned schismatics" and "the evil West." And people like some naive and confused souls on this forum are gladly picking this virus up and spreading it.

Oh, Isa, and to your dynastic lineages (I don't want to quote for it becomes too voluminous): I am not arguing that the Rurikids who reigned over Suzdal and Ryazan' etc. were not the same family as the ones who were in Kyiv or Chernihiv. What I am saying is that the PEOPLE who lived in the domains ruled by prince Yuriy the Long Hands or by prince Andrei "Bogolubski" (that bloody bastard who burned Kyiv and stole our icon of the Most Holy Mother of God of Vysh'horod) were different from Rusy-Rusyny-Rusychi. Their names and their toponyms are convincing enough: Merya, Ves', Chud', Tot'ma, Moskva (Finnish for "rotten water"), Ryazan' (Erzya), Murom, Perm', etc. All these toponyms are not Slavic but Finnish.

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

More than that. We have MP parishes, OCA parishes, and ROCOR parishes here in the USA, now all in communion with each other. Given the LONG standing problems between the three, and the current relative peace, it would seem that the Ukrainian question would not have that difficult of a solution. There could be a uber-Ukrainian Nationalist Church where all services would be in Ukrainian and any Priest or Bishop would have to prove pure Ukrainian bloodline till at least 1600. There could be a regular Ukrainian Orthodox Church where Ukrainians who want Slavonic services could attend, and Priests and Bishops would have to have a good command of the Ukrainian language, and the sermons and Gospel would be read in Ukrainian. And, there could be a Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (which should really be under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR, since Ukraine is independent from Russia) where all the Russians could go. Then the Ukrainians could be just like us here in the USA.

Yes, I am joking with some of the above, but not all.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

More than that. We have MP parishes, OCA parishes, and ROCOR parishes here in the USA, now all in communion with each other. Given the LONG standing problems between the three, and the current relative peace, it would seem that the Ukrainian question would not have that difficult of a solution. There could be a uber-Ukrainian Nationalist Church where all services would be in Ukrainian and any Priest or Bishop would have to prove pure Ukrainian bloodline till at least 1600. There could be a regular Ukrainian Orthodox Church where Ukrainians who want Slavonic services could attend, and Priests and Bishops would have to have a good command of the Ukrainian language, and the sermons and Gospel would be read in Ukrainian. And, there could be a Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (which should really be under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR, since Ukraine is independent from Russia) where all the Russians could go. Then the Ukrainians could be just like us here in the USA.

No, proof of bloodline would not be necessary; I know some priests in UOC-KP who have very Russian-sounding last names and are, apparently, ethnic Russians. That's OK. Ukrainian patriots (or, if you prefer, nationalists) are not ethnophobes. I remember once hearing a choir of African Americans in Seattle singing a hymn in Ukrainian, and I was almost in tears of joy. So, number one is ruled out. Number two and number three are OK, and may and should exist. BTW, if Ukrainians prefer to go to Number Two, that's their business and nobody should blast them for "treason." (And I am sure no one will.)

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

More than that. We have MP parishes, OCA parishes, and ROCOR parishes here in the USA, now all in communion with each other. Given the LONG standing problems between the three, and the current relative peace, it would seem that the Ukrainian question would not have that difficult of a solution. There could be a uber-Ukrainian Nationalist Church where all services would be in Ukrainian and any Priest or Bishop would have to prove pure Ukrainian bloodline till at least 1600. There could be a regular Ukrainian Orthodox Church where Ukrainians who want Slavonic services could attend, and Priests and Bishops would have to have a good command of the Ukrainian language, and the sermons and Gospel would be read in Ukrainian. And, there could be a Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (which should really be under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR, since Ukraine is independent from Russia) where all the Russians could go. Then the Ukrainians could be just like us here in the USA.

No, proof of bloodline would not be necessary; I know some priests in UOC-KP who have very Russian-sounding last names and are, apparently, ethnic Russians. That's OK. Ukrainian patriots (or, if you prefer, nationalists) are not ethnophobes. I remember once hearing a choir of African Americans in Seattle singing a hymn in Ukrainian, and I was almost in tears of joy. So, number one is ruled out. Number two and number three are OK, and may and should exist. BTW, if Ukrainians prefer to go to Number Two, that's their business and nobody should blast them for "treason." (And I am sure no one will.)

You know that I am joking with you Heorhij. I believe that the ROCOR that I am so fond of was heavily populated by Ukrainians, including many (if no most) of the Bishops. Our diocesan Bishop once apologized to a gathering that his Russian was not all that good since his mother tongue was Ukrainian.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

More than that. We have MP parishes, OCA parishes, and ROCOR parishes here in the USA, now all in communion with each other. Given the LONG standing problems between the three, and the current relative peace, it would seem that the Ukrainian question would not have that difficult of a solution. There could be a uber-Ukrainian Nationalist Church where all services would be in Ukrainian and any Priest or Bishop would have to prove pure Ukrainian bloodline till at least 1600. There could be a regular Ukrainian Orthodox Church where Ukrainians who want Slavonic services could attend, and Priests and Bishops would have to have a good command of the Ukrainian language, and the sermons and Gospel would be read in Ukrainian. And, there could be a Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (which should really be under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR, since Ukraine is independent from Russia) where all the Russians could go. Then the Ukrainians could be just like us here in the USA.

No, proof of bloodline would not be necessary; I know some priests in UOC-KP who have very Russian-sounding last names and are, apparently, ethnic Russians. That's OK. Ukrainian patriots (or, if you prefer, nationalists) are not ethnophobes. I remember once hearing a choir of African Americans in Seattle singing a hymn in Ukrainian, and I was almost in tears of joy. So, number one is ruled out. Number two and number three are OK, and may and should exist. BTW, if Ukrainians prefer to go to Number Two, that's their business and nobody should blast them for "treason." (And I am sure no one will.)

You know that I am joking with you Heorhij. I believe that the ROCOR that I am so fond of was heavily populated by Ukrainians, including many (if no most) of the Bishops. Our diocesan Bishop once apologized to a gathering that his Russian was not all that good since his mother tongue was Ukrainian.

Maybe... I really don't know all that much about ROCOR, I wish Her the best, but I cannot exclude that within ROCOR, just like within anything "Russian," there is Russian chauvinism and hatred towards Ukraine. There is a saying among Ukrainian "intelligentsia" that you just scratch a Russian "cultured," "spiritual," "intellectual" person - and there always will be a Ukrainophobe (and yes, they will always tell you stories like "my mother is/was Ukrainian," just like, as a saying goes, every anti-Semite has his favorite Jew). The limit of a Russian's adherence to liberal outlook on the world, on freedom, democracy etc, always ends with independent (REALLY independent) Ukraine, Her government, policies, ideology, future plans, Her vision of Herself and the world, and Her Church.

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

More than that. We have MP parishes, OCA parishes, and ROCOR parishes here in the USA, now all in communion with each other. Given the LONG standing problems between the three, and the current relative peace, it would seem that the Ukrainian question would not have that difficult of a solution. There could be a uber-Ukrainian Nationalist Church where all services would be in Ukrainian and any Priest or Bishop would have to prove pure Ukrainian bloodline till at least 1600. There could be a regular Ukrainian Orthodox Church where Ukrainians who want Slavonic services could attend, and Priests and Bishops would have to have a good command of the Ukrainian language, and the sermons and Gospel would be read in Ukrainian. And, there could be a Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (which should really be under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR, since Ukraine is independent from Russia) where all the Russians could go. Then the Ukrainians could be just like us here in the USA.

No, proof of bloodline would not be necessary; I know some priests in UOC-KP who have very Russian-sounding last names and are, apparently, ethnic Russians. That's OK. Ukrainian patriots (or, if you prefer, nationalists) are not ethnophobes. I remember once hearing a choir of African Americans in Seattle singing a hymn in Ukrainian, and I was almost in tears of joy. So, number one is ruled out. Number two and number three are OK, and may and should exist. BTW, if Ukrainians prefer to go to Number Two, that's their business and nobody should blast them for "treason." (And I am sure no one will.)

You know that I am joking with you Heorhij. I believe that the ROCOR that I am so fond of was heavily populated by Ukrainians, including many (if no most) of the Bishops. Our diocesan Bishop once apologized to a gathering that his Russian was not all that good since his mother tongue was Ukrainian.

Maybe... I really don't know all that much about ROCOR, I wish Her the best, but I cannot exclude that within ROCOR, just like within anything "Russian," there is Russian chauvinism and hatred towards Ukraine. There is a saying among Ukrainian "intelligentsia" that you just scratch a Russian "cultured," "spiritual," "intellectual" person - and there always will be a Ukrainophobe (and yes, they will always tell you stories like "my mother is/was Ukrainian," just like, as a saying goes, every anti-Semite has his favorite Jew). The limit of a Russian's adherence to liberal outlook on the world, on freedom, democracy etc, always ends with independent (REALLY independent) Ukraine, Her government, policies, ideology, future plans, Her vision of Herself and the world, and Her Church.

Again, your hatred for all things Russian shows through. You admit that you don't know much about ROCOR, but you assume that there is a hatred toward Ukraine. I find that interesting since our Metropolitan was born and raised in the Ukraine, and Ukrainian and not Russian is his first language. The first Metropolitan of the ROCOR was the Metropolitan of Kiev. Many, if not most of the first Bishops were members of the Brotherhood of St. Job of Pochaev. I have never seen or experience any hatred, or for that matter, ever heard a bad word spoken about Ukraine from anyone in the ROCOR. Even now in the Serbian Church where I worship, Russian, Serb and Ukrainian (about 1/3 of our attendees) worship side by side (and have even accepted this German as one of their own). No, Heorhij, the only hatred that I have seen expressed comes from you and your kind. It is too bad, but you have shown me where the real problem lies.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

The MP has granted autocephaly to the OCA, but has kept its own "patriarchal parishes" in the US. I think it would be quite possible to reocgnize a canonical church in Ukraine, while keeping MP parishes for Russian nationalists...

More than that. We have MP parishes, OCA parishes, and ROCOR parishes here in the USA, now all in communion with each other. Given the LONG standing problems between the three, and the current relative peace, it would seem that the Ukrainian question would not have that difficult of a solution. There could be a uber-Ukrainian Nationalist Church where all services would be in Ukrainian and any Priest or Bishop would have to prove pure Ukrainian bloodline till at least 1600. There could be a regular Ukrainian Orthodox Church where Ukrainians who want Slavonic services could attend, and Priests and Bishops would have to have a good command of the Ukrainian language, and the sermons and Gospel would be read in Ukrainian. And, there could be a Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine (which should really be under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR, since Ukraine is independent from Russia) where all the Russians could go. Then the Ukrainians could be just like us here in the USA.

No, proof of bloodline would not be necessary; I know some priests in UOC-KP who have very Russian-sounding last names and are, apparently, ethnic Russians. That's OK. Ukrainian patriots (or, if you prefer, nationalists) are not ethnophobes. I remember once hearing a choir of African Americans in Seattle singing a hymn in Ukrainian, and I was almost in tears of joy. So, number one is ruled out. Number two and number three are OK, and may and should exist. BTW, if Ukrainians prefer to go to Number Two, that's their business and nobody should blast them for "treason." (And I am sure no one will.)

You know that I am joking with you Heorhij. I believe that the ROCOR that I am so fond of was heavily populated by Ukrainians, including many (if no most) of the Bishops. Our diocesan Bishop once apologized to a gathering that his Russian was not all that good since his mother tongue was Ukrainian.

Maybe... I really don't know all that much about ROCOR, I wish Her the best, but I cannot exclude that within ROCOR, just like within anything "Russian," there is Russian chauvinism and hatred towards Ukraine. There is a saying among Ukrainian "intelligentsia" that you just scratch a Russian "cultured," "spiritual," "intellectual" person - and there always will be a Ukrainophobe (and yes, they will always tell you stories like "my mother is/was Ukrainian," just like, as a saying goes, every anti-Semite has his favorite Jew). The limit of a Russian's adherence to liberal outlook on the world, on freedom, democracy etc, always ends with independent (REALLY independent) Ukraine, Her government, policies, ideology, future plans, Her vision of Herself and the world, and Her Church.

Again, your hatred for all things Russian shows through. You admit that you don't know much about ROCOR, but you assume that there is a hatred toward Ukraine. I find that interesting since our Metropolitan was born and raised in the Ukraine, and Ukrainian and not Russian is his first language. The first Metropolitan of the ROCOR was the Metropolitan of Kiev. Many, if not most of the first Bishops were members of the Brotherhood of St. Job of Pochaev. I have never seen or experience any hatred, or for that matter, ever heard a bad word spoken about Ukraine from anyone in the ROCOR. Even now in the Serbian Church where I worship, Russian, Serb and Ukrainian (about 1/3 of our attendees) worship side by side (and have even accepted this German as one of their own). No, Heorhij, the only hatred that I have seen expressed comes from you and your kind. It is too bad, but you have shown me where the real problem lies.

I'm afraid that the vast majority of Russians manage to spend their days iwthout given a thought to Ukraine. They would all have the autistic focus on Ukraine needed for Ukrainophobia to sink in the Russian soul as Heorhij alleges. It seems no Russia will please some Ukrainians, so why bother? So it leaves the job to those Russians whose Ukrainophobia makes them focus on it. Way to go.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I'm afraid that the vast majority of Russians manage to spend their days iwthout given a thought to Ukraine. They would all have the autistic focus on Ukraine needed for Ukrainophobia to sink in the Russian soul as Heorhij alleges.

Polls made in Russia indicate that 60% of respondents characterize Ukraine as "evil." When I studied in Moscow in 1981-84, I was asked many times by various Moscowites, are there many Banderites among Ukrainians, and is it true that you Ukrainians hate us Russians? My wife was nicknamed "Banderite" in Moscow for no other reason than her being from Western Ukraine. Note that this was long before any open support of Ukrainian "nationalism" became even possible. So I guess, yes, there is some autistic focus on Ukraine among many Russians. They have a peculiar "knee-jerk reflex" to any expression of patriotism, pride for one's nation unless this concerns Russia. Patriots of all other nations seem to Russians to be haters of Russia.

Why do you think so? Personally, I would love to see Russia without grotesque figures like Patr. +KIRILL who comes to the capital of Ukraine and teaches Ukrainians that they are in fact Russians, and develops a clearly Imperialist concept of a fictitious "Russian World," of which Ukraine, in his royal opinion, must be a part. I would love to see Russia WITH wonderful people like Andrei Sakharov, Georgiy Yavlinskiy, Irena Hakamada, Fr. Alexandr Men' et al. I have absolutely nothing against Russia as a nation, as a country that could have been a good neighbor to Ukraine if she so chose.

BTW, let me say that I accept the moderators' disciplinary warning, but in my comment about Dalibor, I did not, most certainly, mean any PHYSICAL harm I would do to him. I am not a violent person. I meant simply attitude to people whom I see as enemies of my motherland and of me. I love them (meaning, if they are hungry, I'll feed them, if they thirst, I'll give them water to drink, etc. - I will always be compassionate to them as human being, as ill, fallen, needing support and help as they are); but I despise them.

BTW, let me say that I accept the moderators' disciplinary warning, but in my comment about Dalibor, I did not, most certainly, mean any PHYSICAL harm I would do to him. I am not a violent person. I meant simply attitude to people whom I see as enemies of my motherland and of me. I love them (meaning, if they are hungry, I'll feed them, if they thirst, I'll give them water to drink, etc. - I will always be compassionate to them as human being, as ill, fallen, needing support and help as they are); but I despise them.

We srbs Love Holy Russia , Please Don't pick on her......Rome has blinded You ,thur the Ukrainian Eastern Catholic Church,thats sowing this extreme Nationalizm amongst you and this hate for russia....You swallowed it Hook Line and sinker...As long As they Have The Orthodox Squabbling amongs themselfs ,there picking you off one by one.......Wake up Orthodox Ukrainia and see for what it is.....

I couldn't make it through that video, Stashko. What little I saw made me terribly sad and feel inferior and left out as someone who is neither Russian nor Serbian. I saw little of Christ and true Christianity in that video-just violence, ethnic superiority and guns. How sad. This is the terrible tragedy of nationalism. It neglects to recognize the fact that we are all one in Christ-it matters not of what nationality or ethnicity we are-Christ came to break down all such barriors. Nationalism is very hurtful and vicious in the end, and goes completely against the beautiful Gospel message, the new commandment, that we love one another.

I couldn't make it through that video, Stashko. What little I saw made me terribly sad and feel inferior and left out as someone who is neither Russian nor Serbian. I saw little of Christ and true Christianity in that video-just violence, ethnic superiority and guns. How sad. This is the terrible tragedy of nationalism. It neglects the fact that we are all one in Christ-it matters not of what nationality or ethnicity we are. Nationalism is very hurtful in the end.

I think the singing was in russian ,so i didn't quite understand it ,...Your Right it Maybe the wrong Video i posted.....Sorry i just wanted to post the love one between ruusia and serbija .......

I couldn't make it through that video, Stashko. What little I saw made me terribly sad and feel inferior and left out as someone who is neither Russian nor Serbian. I saw little of Christ and true Christianity in that video-just violence, ethnic superiority and guns. How sad. This is the terrible tragedy of nationalism. It neglects to recognize the fact that we are all one in Christ-it matters not of what nationality or ethnicity we are-Christ came to break down all such barriors. Nationalism is very hurtful and vicious in the end, and goes completely against the beautiful Gospel message, the new commandment, that we love one another.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Then you Srbs love your own dream. "Holy Russia" never existed. The entire history of Russia as a state is the history of lies, treachery, murder, and imperialistic expansion. There certainly have been and there certainly are some wonderful PEOPLE in Russia, but as a political entity, it has always been terrible and it remains terrible.

Please Don't pick on her......Rome has blinded You ,thur the Ukrainian Eastern Catholic Church,thats sowing this extreme Nationalizm amongst you and this hate for russia....You swallowed it Hook Line and sinker...As long As they Have The Orthodox Squabbling amongs themselfs ,there picking you off one by one.......Wake up Orthodox Ukrainia and see for what it is.....

As I said, I am not an enemy of Russian *PEOPLE* - I just cannot accept the idea, propagated by the current Kremlin leadership and obediently repeated by puppets like Patriarch +KIRILL that Ukraine is a part of a fictitious "Russian World" that is meant to oppose the "decadent and evil West." I lived in the former USSR for 32 years. My parents and grandparents experienced many horrors of living in a country on which the Kremlin stars were shining. That country never changed, it is still the same, an autocracy where human dignity, rights, choices, freedoms are considered "secondary to the eternal principles of the Russian Orthodox Church" (note that in this statement, now the former version, "the ideals of Marxism-Leninism" is simply replaced by "the eternal principles of the Russian Orthodox Church"). I don't want Ukraine to be a province of Russia where there are no free elections, no opposition, no free press, no political parties except those graciously allowed by a certain Orthodox Tzar. Why is this too much to ask?

I couldn't make it through that video, Stashko. What little I saw made me terribly sad and feel inferior and left out as someone who is neither Russian nor Serbian. I saw little of Christ and true Christianity in that video-just violence, ethnic superiority and guns. How sad. This is the terrible tragedy of nationalism. It neglects to recognize the fact that we are all one in Christ-it matters not of what nationality or ethnicity we are-Christ came to break down all such barriors. Nationalism is very hurtful and vicious in the end, and goes completely against the beautiful Gospel message, the new commandment, that we love one another.

I second.

I cannot watch this video now because my antiquated home computer does not have enough memory. I will watch it tomorrow at work. Right now I'll say though, that there is nationalism and nationalism. There is nationalism of George Washington and nationalism of Gandhi. Is there something wrong about those? Americans are the BIGGEST nationalists in the world. And they have a prosperous country where it is good to live. And I love them for that.

Then you Srbs love your own dream. "Holy Russia" never existed. The entire history of Russia as a state is the history of lies, treachery, murder, and imperialistic expansion. There certainly have been and there certainly are some wonderful PEOPLE in Russia, but as a political entity, it has always been terrible and it remains terrible.

Please Don't pick on her......Rome has blinded You ,thur the Ukrainian Eastern Catholic Church,thats sowing this extreme Nationalizm amongst you and this hate for russia....You swallowed it Hook Line and sinker...As long As they Have The Orthodox Squabbling amongs themselfs ,there picking you off one by one.......Wake up Orthodox Ukrainia and see for what it is.....

As I said, I am not an enemy of Russian *PEOPLE* - I just cannot accept the idea, propagated by the current Kremlin leadership and obediently repeated by puppets like Patriarch +KIRILL that Ukraine is a part of a fictitious "Russian World" that is meant to oppose the "decadent and evil West." I lived in the former USSR for 32 years. My parents and grandparents experienced many horrors of living in a country on which the Kremlin stars were shining. That country never changed, it is still the same, an autocracy where human dignity, rights, choices, freedoms are considered "secondary to the eternal principles of the Russian Orthodox Church" (note that in this statement, now the former version, "the ideals of Marxism-Leninism" is simply replaced by "the eternal principles of the Russian Orthodox Church"). I don't want Ukraine to be a province of Russia where there are no free elections, no opposition, no free press, no political parties except those graciously allowed by a certain Orthodox Tzar. Why is this too much to ask?

It's Hard to Believe Your a Orthodox Christian ...It really is ....All Eastern Holy Orthodoxy One...United Nothing Should be able to seperate us From it...I hope Your not a Roman Eastern catholic Agent sent here to sow and Scatter the Sheep....

I couldn't make it through that video, Stashko. What little I saw made me terribly sad and feel inferior and left out as someone who is neither Russian nor Serbian. I saw little of Christ and true Christianity in that video-just violence, ethnic superiority and guns. How sad. This is the terrible tragedy of nationalism. It neglects to recognize the fact that we are all one in Christ-it matters not of what nationality or ethnicity we are-Christ came to break down all such barriors. Nationalism is very hurtful and vicious in the end, and goes completely against the beautiful Gospel message, the new commandment, that we love one another.

I second.

I cannot watch this video now because my antiquated home computer does not have enough memory. I will watch it tomorrow at work. Right now I'll say though, that there is nationalism and nationalism. There is nationalism of George Washington and nationalism of Gandhi. Is there something wrong about those? Americans are the BIGGEST nationalists in the world. And they have a prosperous country where it is good to live. And I love them for that.

Well, I'm not American, so it doesn't fizz on me at all. I rather consider myself to be a citizen of the world. I view all nations and people as equal and precious in God's eyes. I don't view my country of birth to be any better than any other country-just different. I would hate to go around bragging about it and making non-Canadians feel left out. I've experienced a lot of ostracism in my life and learning from that, I would want to be careful not to put others in such a position. I guess I grew up being taught that as Christians, we are all "strangers and pilgrims" and that this world is not our home, we have a different allegiance, which is first and foremost, to God's kingdom.